Compoundable offence

2025 PTD 773 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2 (37), 11, 33, Table, Column No. 1, Srl. 11, 13 & 37(a)(iv)Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 497Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10ATax fraudBail, grant ofActus reus and mens reaBail bond, quantum ofDue process of lawCompoundable offenceEffect

Accused was bank manager who was arrested in present case for sales tax fraud to the amount of approximately Rs.3.2 billion

Role attributed to accused was of aiding and abetting taxpayer company by opening its accounts in his branch

Validity

Actus reus for an offence under S. 33 is failure of a taxpayer to discharge its tax liability found to be due

There exists no actus reus till after the tax due has been determined through assessment process prescribed under Sales Tax Act, 1990

Question of mens rea can therefore not arise till after the guilty act is found to have transpired

Offenses under S. 33 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 are not thought crimes

Where there is no failure to discharge tax liability as duly determined under Sales Tax Act, 1990 no criminal liability can be imagined or founded

Determination of civil liabilities, as required under Art. 10A of the Constitution must be the product of due process

Such process takes time and bestows on citizen the right of appeal which does not entitle the state to ride roughshod over the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of citizens, including their right to liberty and dignity

Offences mentioned in FIR were compoundable in terms of S. 37A(4) of Sales Tax Act, 1990

Accused was not named in FIR, which alleged that taxpayer was liable for tax fraud for seeking tax credits and/or tax benefits on the basis of fake sales tax invoices

No assessment of tax due by taxpayer was undertaken under S. 11 of Sales Tax Act, 1990

It was prior to determination of such tax liability that pre-trial steps of arrest and detention had been taken by tax department in breach of law

High Court found accused entitled to release on bail, subject to furnishing bail bond for a sum of Rs.100/- (One hundred)

Application was allowed, in circumstances.

2025 PLD 212 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S. 497Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990), Ss. 2 (37), 11, 33 Table, Column No. 1, Srl. 11, 13 & 37(a)(iv)Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10ATax fraudBail, grant ofActus reus and mens reaBail bond, quantum ofDue process of lawCompoundable offenceEffect

Accused was bank manager who was arrested in present case for sales tax fraud to the amount of approximately Rs.3.2 billion

Role attributed to accused was of aiding and abetting taxpayer company by opening its accounts in his branch

Validity

Actus reus for an offence under S. 33 is failure of a taxpayer to discharge its tax liability found to be due

There exists no actus reus till after the tax due has been determined through assessment process prescribed under Sales Tax Act, 1990

Question of mens rea can therefore not arise till after the guilty act is found to have transpired

Offenses under S. 33 of Sales Tax Act, 1990 are not thought crimes

Where there is no failure to discharge tax liability as duly determined under Sales Tax Act, 1990 no criminal liability can be imagined or founded

Determination of civil liabilities, as required under Art. 10A of the Constitution must be the product of due process

Such process takes time and bestows on citizen the right of appeal which does not entitle the state to ride roughshod over the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of citizens, including their right to liberty and dignity

Offences mentioned in FIR were compoundable in terms of S. 37A(4) of Sales Tax Act, 1990

Accused was not named in FIR, which alleged that taxpayer was liable for tax fraud for seeking tax credits and/or tax benefits on the basis of fake sales tax invoices

No assessment of tax due by taxpayer was undertaken under S. 11 of Sales Tax Act, 1990

It was prior to determination of such tax liability that pre-trial steps of arrest and detention had been taken by tax department in breach of law

High Court found accused entitled to release on bail, subject to furnishing bail bond for a sum of Rs.100/- (One hundred)

Application was allowed, in circumstances.

2020 PLD 97 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 497Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-FDishonouring of chequeCompoundable offenceBail, grant ofCheque issued by accused to complainant was dishonoured due to insufficient funds

Accused submitted affidavit stating that he was ready to pay the amount of cheque by certain date and in case of his failure in dishonouring his commitment, he would not be entitled to enjoy the right of bail

Offence under S.489-F, P.P.C., being cognizable and compoundable, considering the compounding character of offence, court seized with bail application, may extend concession of bail

If the accused did not honour his commitment in terms of compromise accused would lose his right to enjoy concession of bail

Bail was granted accordingly.

2017 YLR 1461 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Compoundable offenceCompromisePrinciple

Once a compromise always a compromise, unless it was brought on record that the same was effected through any influence, coercion or force.